He does not mention that earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of carbon dioxide.

There are more than 700 scientists who disagree with the United Nations — 13 times the number who wrote the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a doctorate in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief.

Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental-physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.

How long will The Seattle Times continue to repeat the tired mantras of global-warming believers?

While there can be no justification for opposing conservation or alternate sources of energy, there are considerable current climate and atmospheric science reasons for opposing the fraud of cap-and-trade legislation.

— Steven Keeler, Seattle

Krugman needn’t name-call to prove point

Paul Krugman lost my respect when he resorted to name-calling to discredit his opponents as well as characterize Rep. Paul Broun’s statement, which, unfortunately, used “global warming” as shorthand for “man’s contribution to global warming.”

Krugman is obviously trying to escalate national emotion in support of the hyperbolic efforts of Al Gore ahead of a worldwide trend in rethinking man’s influence on global warming, a growing movement among scientists late in being recognized here in the U.S.

The current debate can only be about mankind’s contribution to global warming because beyond this mankind is only an observer.

A rising trend in scientific thought worldwide as described in Kimberly A. Strassel’s June 26 opinion article in The Wall Street Journal is commended for your critical reading. Contrary to Krugman pronouncements, she states within one internal paragraph, “The collapse of the ‘consensus’ has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of CO2. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.”

Thank our Founding Fathers for giving us senators!

— Jared D. Mayes, North Bend

Volunteerism, not green products, needed

If someone truly denies the Earth’s climate is changing, I agree with Paul Krugman that they are scientifically wrong. However, most of those who are in dispute with the pro-climate-change studies are not in denial. It is the reason for the change they are arguing against.

It is scientifically beyond our power to have any real capability to stop some warming or climate change. To think so is egotistical. As inhabitants, we can help ourselves only by not helping the inevitable.

There is more to climate-change theory than just the scientific phenomena. It is man’s greed to profit from climate-change claims. The business world and marketplace capitalism has taken advantage of fear by providing us with green products and organic growth. Selling us on their world-saving products will do little to stop climate change if not cause its intensity to increase.

If businesses are really interested in saving the planet, volunteerism is by far more effective. Recycling, renewable energy and replacement of the automobile with mass-transportation methods are more effective than dumping green products on the marketplace. This volunteerism has been going on for some time with little credit given to those who participate.

One way to look at climate change is by examining Earth’s development. The Earth has gone from ice age to warming many times in the past without man’s interference, and it will do the same with man’s interference.

— Jim Morris, Renton

Green manufacturers do have earth’s best interests at heart

I was deeply offended by Tom Watson’s assertion in the EcoConsumer column [“Don’t be alarmed, but do be wary of some chemicals,” YourSaturday, June 20] that “activist environmental groups may stoke consumer fears as a way to increase their own financial support.”

By this logic, the American Lung Association would wish to see an increase in the number of asthma deaths from air pollution and Washington Toxins Coalition would want to see higher amounts of toxins and pesticide levels found in human subjects in order to “stoke consumer’s fears” to increase their financial support.

This is a ludicrous assumption and a smear on the good work done by these organizations that act as watchdogs for the health of Washington state residents. Your apology to them is overdue.

Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words letters@seattletimes.com.